"The pornography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei, the BBC has learned. UK-based employees at the firm are able to decide which sites TalkTalk's net filtering service blocks." The irony. It hurts.

Adding insult to injury is making a bad situation worse, but how exactly is technology from a Chinese firm adding insult to injury?

"let's say someone ran over your dog and it happened in front of you. In one scenario, the person gets out of the car and kicks your dog's limp body to the side. In another scenario, the person backs over your dog and goes over it again once or twice."

The second scenario is intended to reflect evil qualities in the person, so are you trying to infer that Chinese firms have evil qualities in and of themselves? If so, then that's the antithesis of my original post, if not then I don't get your analogy.

Adding insult to injury is making a bad situation worse, but how exactly is technology from a Chinese firm adding insult to injury?

Because the Chinese firm in question is Huawei.

"let's say someone ran over your dog and it happened in front of you. In one scenario, the person gets out of the car and kicks your dog's limp body to the side. In another scenario, the person backs over your dog and goes over it again once or twice."

The second scenario is intended to reflect evil qualities in the person, so are you trying to infer that Chinese firms have evil qualities in and of themselves? If so, then that's the antithesis of my original post, if not then I don't get your analogy.

The second scenario is NOT intended to reflect evil qualities in the person. It is intended to reflect that, even in a irreparably bad situation, you can still add to it to make it worse.

If you're an atheist like me, a dead pet dog is a dead pet dog. No doggy heaven. But I still wouldn't like to see my dead pet dog's body treated badly.

Twice you've said "Chinese firm", as though all the criticism is because the firm is Chinese. The point is not that it's Chinese, it's because it's Huawei.

"Twice you've said 'Chinese firm', as though all the criticism is because the firm is Chinese. The point is not that it's Chinese, it's because it's Huawei."

Well, your earlier post lead me to believe that your criticism was based on nationality:

"See, censorship in a democracy is already VERY controversial. Then the fact that they use tax payer money to fund a Chinese supplied system makes the already VERY controversial into a holy-fuck controversial."

If this isn't because they're a Chinese firm, I guess I missed the source of your criticism for Huawei?

"The second scenario is NOT intended to reflect evil qualities in the person. It is intended to reflect that, even in a irreparably bad situation, you can still add to it to make it worse."

Except you haven't really pointed out what has made it worse now that you know Huawei is sourced for the technology instead of someone else. Is anything at all tangibly worse about Huawei than someone else?